tv TA Vision Zero Committee 52115 SFGTV July 27, 2015 10:20pm-12:01am PDT
supervisor jane kim's ordinance because with you and supervisor avalos, supervisor campos and supervisor mar have been biased to the landlords -- >> thank you. >> just as a reminder, asa courtesy to your fellow public commenters, please adhere to the 2-minute limit, so that everyone has an opportunity to speak here today. no one message is more important than the other. >> good afternoon, supervisors and everybody, i am the co-owner -- -- i don't know
how you say in english. >> i'm a property homeowner. this law makes landlord cannot sustain. if it passes, we just withdraw from the rental market. make rental apartments further decrease availability, and please, do not scapegoat small property owners for city hall's mistakes. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is james tracy; community partnership homes homeless people. we retain our tenants. we don't evict our tenants. we create a climate of trust with our tenants, where when
someone makes minor lease violations by putting something out in the hall and making too much noise, we talk with them like adults. we do not rush to eviction notice. if we can do it with our 1400 residents, i think just about anyone else can do it. that is why we have signed on to the letter with 44 very diverse organizers from all over, which i will submit to this committee. i also wanted to add one factoid, one that has been going around from the landlords' side that is frankly incorrect. the thousands of units being held off the unit, according to the census. i worked very hard on the census, through the city, through the office of citizen engagement and immigrant rights and that 31,000 were the amount of units, amount of homes that were for-rent on april 1, of 2010, that were vacant, but not
abandon order held off the market for the most part. thank you. >> good afternoon, speakers. i am here with the anti-eviction project. very much supporting eviction protections 2.0. over the last couple of years, the mapping project has done a lot of work, calling attention to how deadly ellis act eviction and other no-fault evictions, but how deadly eviction and other forms of evictions in san francisco. looking at the recent surge of evictions in san francisco for the last five years found that breach of evictions have been rising more steadily than any other type of eviction. we found in 20 12 468 breach eviction and in 2014, 738 breach evictions and that
number has risen dramatically over last two years, very much responding to the fact that san francisco is now the most expensive city in the united states and landlords are very eager to evict tenants for small, low-fault things to profit. we have been collecting data through the project the last two years and we have a survey administered online and through the san francisco tenant's union and tenants are constantly submiting their eviction stories to them. i was going through them to find of the most egregious ones, but one story of a woman who was evicted because she and her partner had a four-bedroom unit in the castro. they had a roommate that they had changed a couple of times during the time they lived there. the landlord knew about this and the relatives of the landlord knew it, but this past year they were evicted because it wasn't in monitoring.
they installed a security camera [speaker not understood] so there are cases like this happening all the time and uno, who was a teacher with the unified school district couldn't find a place to live in san francisco and is in portland, oregon. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> my name benito santigo. -- thank you, supervisor jane kim for the residential rent stabilization arbitration ordinance. i have focused this on what i hear my colleagues mentioning to low-fault grievances that should be different time for arbitration for people to talk as adults, to clear out things, like shoes in the hallway, or
laundry on the clothes line, what have you. the people -- those that i heard also, that have really you -- that really need to be evicted like the drug-dealer and prostitutes and what have you? that i can see their side on that. but for minor instances of putting shoes in the hallway, something like that, that should be -- we should be treated as adults and not just for the underlying premise of kicking out rent-controled persons like myself for the greed profit of the greedy speculators that sometimes they sell it for, like what happened with me. our landlord sold it to a speculator and they raised the
rent. thank you supervisor jane kim for the ordinance and i support you 100%. thank you. >> thank you very much for your comments. >> hi, good evening, council. my name is miguel with ace. i am a veteran, a straight male and here to talk about why it's important to pass this legislation that supervisor jane kim wants to do. for those who came out here to san francisco to seek a new life or for a better workplace, as a tenant it's meaningful for you to pass something to help us out. know some have demonized us as drug-dealers and hookers and all of this stuff. you can look out in san francisco to people who aren't tenants who do that already. that comes with the territory, you know? it's an adult disneyland out here. besides that, i feel there isn't anything to help the kids in the mission who are out there on the streets, slumming and living out of their cars. there are 8,000 kids who don't have a place to live and a lot
of people homeless in san francisco. part of it is driven by greed and more money. obviously the field for housing is getting smaller and people can make more profit, but there has to be some sort of law, something to help the people out. and to help the community out of the because there being a standstill with the people that actually own property who want to rent it pore for high and no affordable housing to be built. you have a problem with no solution. there are people here who come out here to help out the community, as well as take way from the community. i strongly feel passing what supervisor kim says is going to benefit families and benefit people of color and is going benefit the city. thank you very much for your time and stop evictions and help san franciscans. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is lee anderson, small property owner in san francisco. small property owners already
carry substantial financial burden because of the existing rent-control ordinances that are in place. many property owners are paying thousands of dollars a month for mortgage, insurance, property taxes, city assessments, utility and building repairs and maintenance. because of the rent-control ordinance the rent received is often quite low the operating costs of the building not to mention the current market rate for comparable units, forcing landlords into a negative cash position is no longer enough. now supervisor kim and her comrades are conspiring with this legislation. if such an outrageous law should park the city will squeeze the landowners carrying below market rate units. with no hope of rising rents to carry it, victims the kim legislation would be left with the foing choices to a, perishally subsidize their you lifetimes in san francisco by paying for the lion's share of
costs rest of their lives. b stop paying building and default on property taxes due to lack of income. c completely give up and defaulted on the mortgage and walk away on the building. d, put your build up for sale for discount, et cetera. just who might want to buy a building like that? why it's the city itself. yes, the city would be creating a whole new department of bmr building. it's already happening now. that is too bad for the small guy who put his butt on the line for investing in san francisco. please don't pass this legislation. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi. my name is julie and i grew up here in san francisco. i represent my parents who are elderly, who cannot be here to
speak for themselves. so i am speaking on their behalf. i want to ask one question of supervisor kim, to maintain the base rent of the tenant, even once the tenant has moved out. can i ask you what will protect the landlord's base payments for the property tax or the insurance? would you be willing to protect the base payment when the tenant moves out also? so i hear that your intentions for supporting this ordinance has come from your social justice. i am afraid that you are overshadowed by a lot of horror stories of tenants, that this ordinance will take care of the social justice. but my feeling is that this ordinance will only create social divide because the haves and not-haves. the haves being the tenants and
the not-haves as the landlord. i hope that you really take our word thoughtfully and listen to a lot of the homeowners, the landlords, the small property owners who actually provide housing for the needy. we over the years didn't become horrible landlords. we were once renters at one time. my parents were renters at one time and we became landlords after years of savings and hard work and knowing that a good investment in real estate. we are good landlords, otherwise are tenants why would they want to stay in our property? please do not on the ruin that. please listen and think about our reasons. thank you. >> thanks, next speaker. >> good afternoon.
protectionlaw. this is why the demand is way higher than supply. so supervisor, please, please consider on the homeowners' side and please treat them fairly. and make some better laws, so the landlord will make a better place also for the tenants. so maybe they can motivate homeowner to rent out again.
please don't create law to on the surface it looks like it's helping the tenant. however, on the other hand, it's hurting their rights, because it's discouraging rental properties and decreasing the number of rental units. please make law that the homeowners and tenants can survive and live peacefully in such a nice place in san francisco. that is why i am opposed to this law. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is -- i'm vice president of the chinese realtor association of america.
i opposed to this law personally i was a tenant for more than 10 years, and my parents were first-generation to come to the u.s.. they worked as laborers, working-class. they make minimum wage to support me to go to college, to have an education. as part of an immigrant and minority in san francisco, we want to have a piece of property to call a home. that is why we saved up every single penny that we earned, after 12 years' of living in san francisco. finally we became homeowners to own a piece of property here. however, the current tenant situation and then the current lawmaking it really hard, even for us. we were a tenant before and i have really good relationship with my past landlord. however, it makes it really
hard for me to rent out some of the space in my house to benefit some of the tenants, because such a move might cause me tens of thousands of dollars in return. as i have spoken to many homeowners in san francisco, they have been victims of some of the bad tenants. however, we're all grassroot homeowners and please make the law fair to both sides, tenants and property owners. i am strongly opposed to this law, because i don't believe it will help to create a better housing situation in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is theresa. i'm a parent of three wonderful children and soma
tenant/resident. i wanted to ask you questions, because i do feel bad to some of the small property owners, but i'm also a tenant. do you have familis? i'm sure you do. kids? parents? grandparents? uncles? have you ever thought about your family as future? i am sewer you do. have you ever thought of what food put on your table for your family, when you don't have enough financial means? but we pay our rents on-time. we pay our bills on-time. do you know how it feels when you are being ellis act evicted four time through different owners tenants here in san francisco, we wouldn't be like this if all of our landlords are good landlords, just like i
think some of them who are here. but have you observed the daily activitis? do you know our hurts, our pains and what our needs are? i want to know -- i want to let you know, first, when we had our first new landlord after our original landlord passed away, they cut off -- they had our water main closed and the san francisco water department at that time didn't even bother to investigate why. one of the previous owners went to the point of suggesting to us that we should put our seniors in a senior home, because that is where they should be. you do not say that to a filipino family, to a chinese family -- --
>> ma'am, your time is up. thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, board of supervisor. my name is trudy. i'm a family organizer. i am here to support the passage of this tenant protection 2.0 proposed by supervisor jane kim. recently we have families individuals, seniors and persons with disabilities who have been harassed, intimidated, evicted and are displaced now. we are glad that this most urgent reforms in the city to control laws addressing the eviction crisis is being done. we need to pass this legislation for the protection of our tenants, and to stop the arbitrary evictions of greedy landlords. let's ensure that san francisco remains a city for everyone. thank you. >> thank you.
next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is raymond castillo. i work with community network and bayview resident, tenant there. at somcan, we work with youth and families in the neighborhood. i want to go over this year alone we worked with a lot of different eviction cases from ellis act eviction to omi, and that is only this year alone. the year is not even done yet and we have so much eviction and housing crisis in the city that i'm glad that supervisor kim has brought this legislation up and i'm all for it. i do want to talk about so of my youth. i work with around 15-20 youth, and for the past this year, i have about six youth that just got evict order currently going through eviction.
and they are moving to oakland august 1st. just imagine how they feel. they go to balboa high school. they are involved with all of the after-school volleyball to football, and they are good kids. a year-ago they just found out their mother has cancer. and now they are going through eviction. in a couple of days they are moving to oakland. the school year is coming up they are going to have to travel that far to go back to balboa. just imagine how they feel. this whole process, knowing about their mother and all of this and this whole eviction thing. this has got to stop. if this thing was passed before they should have been protected and they wouldn't have to move out. thank you, again, supervisor kim for bringing this and thank you for taking your time and please consider passing this, because it's really getting too much. thank you. thank you very much.
next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, again, supervisors. my name san fernandoo, with the council of community housing organizations and we are one of the 44 organizations that have signed on to support this very needed measure for tenant protections. i have a question for the small property owners, for the landlords and realtors, do you evict people without proof of violations when they pay their rent dutiful every month? if not, i would hope that you would support this legislation. do you find an excuse to move in a son or daughter for a few years just to evict the tenant and then jack up the rent? if not, would i hope that you would support this legislation. do you refuse to let your tenants understand you with translated notices? if that is not something that you oppose,
i would suppose that would you support this legislation. those are the three simple things that it does. one more thing, i heard a few folks talk about means testing. i would like to see tenants be means tested. bring it on. let's see means testing for landlords? let's see means testing for the income tax mortgage deduction, the single largest subsidy that government does for housing. if you are not low-income, strike that. let's do means testing for prop 13, if you are not low-income, pay your taxes. i don't think that is where you want to go. once again, i think it's an important piece of legislatings that closes some very simple loopholes that nobody should be opposed to. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is galina freedman.
i am 69 years old. and my husband is 80. for the last almost ten years we live in a house in a building which has 52 units. for the last -- in the last 1.5 years this house, this building was sold and the new building owner refused to take our rent for 1.5 years. we collect this rent. it became almost $30,000 in 1.5 years and the landlord complains of low-income to paying his expenses. our unit, our building has 52 units and if you say that two people live in each unit, it's 104 people are thrown out on
the streets. for the last 2 years, i witnessed four buildings of the same capacity like ours being demolished in front of our eyes. and in this place, four new condominiums were erected, each one with a price $1.5 million. my husband is disabled. we tried to find a new place, but each place is much more than what we pay right now. we can't afford a new rent for about $4500. we can't afford to buy a condominium for $1.5 million. the only place we could afford in the near-future, if this harassment doesn't stop is a grave in the cemetery. i am for this to pass.
thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisor. steve collier, tenderloin housing clinic. i am here to urge your support of this legislation. mrs. freedman and her spouse are clients of mine and they are being evicted because the landlord is claiming that they are residential occupancy for the last ten years of their unit is illegal and he gave them a 3-day notice to move out. no relocation payments, no requires permit from the city to remove their unit from housing use. in fact,, the permit history is at best mixed. it was builts an apartment building. sometime in the '40s or '50s, possibly some units were converted to commercial units, but galina and michael's apartment is a nice apartment. and they are being evicted so the landlord can charge a higher rent and there is
absolutely nothing would stop the landlord from doing that. this is the type of loophole that we need to close with the legislation. every rent-controlled tenant who is evicted results in a loss of affordability for san francisco because those units are then rented at market. and/or that tenant those then try to get some other below-market rate units through our bmr or affordable housing program. every unit that we lose is significant. and lastly, there is an industry that is causing these evictions. they focus on loopholes, landlord lawyers who make seminars on this and focus on telling their landlords to find any technicality that they can. because once the tenant is served with the notice, they have given 3-day and they will not be out in three day and
they don't get to talk to a mediate or settle judge before the following monday. no tenant is going to have the resources in the few days on their own to fight the eviction and they end up moving so please support this legislation. thank you. >> >> hello, my name is patricia kerman and i want to thank supervisor kim for this legislation. it's greatly needed. i myself went through an ellis act eviction. i fought it. and i won. issues i'm still living under the tension of i don't know what will happen next to me. these are buildings. they are homes. we're not talking -- this legislation really is not talking about the small, good
landlord. they have nothing to fear from this, unless they are doing things that are reprehensible. then they better be afraid, because we want to have legislation to protect those who are being harassed; i have been going through harassment from my landlord for a long time. whether it's not fixing front porch lights, not taking out garbage, ceilings falling in from constant construction he is doing in the three remaining units. this has a great effect on somebody's health or i should say their ill-health, because you can't eat or sleep and you are stressed all of the time and this is what is happening to the people in our city. walk around the mission streets some evening with me and we'll
go through all the tent cities lined up on 19th street, on folsom street, on -- you just name a street, you can go down there and you will find the tents come out and there is more and more and more every time i go for a walk. thank you. please pass this. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is jesse johnson and live in the tender lin.loin. most of the tenants have lived there long-term. i call them old-school because "old-school" mean it's family-owned. it means that the building has been designated historical, over 100 beyond beyond years
old and looks like it is. it means that the front desk will come and scream at your door for some inexplicable reason. old-school means that you don't have a social worker writing up a file -- it means your room is going to be twice the size that a non-profit sro would put someone in and you can afford without a government subsidy. i know what i am describing is not the healthiest relationship. the problem is that when one party decides to break that
contract, the party with the greater power like the landlord, we're screwed. so suddenly deciding that the guy who lived there for 27 years, the room is substandard and these people own a building full of rats decide you can't have a cat. you know, i think the legislation that supervisor kim has come up with is right on target for these situations. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> buenos tardes. >> translator: good afternoon. my name is pastino and i am here as a resident of district 10. where i have lived for the last 20 years.
the death of a senior and that i heard firsthand from the landlord and i say "fires" in quotes. one of these cases where a senior died i heard personally from the landlord, look, i got rid of the senior and the bank will still pay me out, isn't that great? i urge you to support this legislation because if you are all as our elected officials are not here to protect us, who is going to do it for us?
we're not all here naming the equal price. everybody is naming their own price for housing and tenants are getting the short end of the stick. i feel like a stranger when i walk through any neighborhood, because it's changed so much. people that used to live in my neighborhood, moved out. i worry about if there were a place for my children to grow up or live when had he get they get older or our fate will be decided by wealthy property earn owners?
i want to personally thank supervisor kim for this legislation. i think that it shows a commitment to justice and commitment to equality, and thanks for that. >> good afternoon, supervisor, my name is mary, housing likes organizer. it seem like this is a rainshower, routine, where we have hours and hours' of testimony talking about the ways in which it impacts their health and well-being and their children and future generation and past generations. you have heard all of it. i had members that were here that had to leave, artists in the mission being denied
roommates just because the landlord doesn't want a roommate there. it doesn't violate the occupancy ordinance. it doesn't violate the lease. the landlord just wants to raise their rent and slowly evict them one at a time. tenants in supervisor avalos' district, district 10 are evicted and the person who served them the notice did not tell them what was and it was not in english and they lost in court because they didn't know what was going on. in san francisco, someone shouldn't be evicted because they don't speak english and i don't believe that any of you think that is right. this legislation takes us back to the spirit of law and if there are property owners afraid of this law, i worry what they are afraid of? if they are property owners following the law, that are ensuring that tenants have
safe, accessible, affordable housing they should be able for this, because this legislation just keeps people in their home and makes sure that no one is homeless and makes it so that san francisco doesn't have to build homes for people who currently have homes. every time we build a unit, three or four units of affordable rent-controls unitss are lost. if we can stop evictions may we can move forward. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, before. >> before i moved tot to the bay, this was the kind of organization i was familiar with. i was surprised to finding it including opposing things like 8 washington and i don't agree with that. insofar as opposition --
opposing evision controls harms adding more capacity. strong eviction controls like this law, why i support it and also includes adding residential capacity as quickly, as cheaply and as safely as possible and there are parking lots that we can build on cheaply, fast, if we let it happen. those are the two prongs of effective anti-displacement and we can't have one without the other. only having one is not going to work. thank you. i support this. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello, my name is jb and i'm here to oppose this legislation. there are several reasons and
many have been touched on, but one thing that hasn't been touched on is the whole roommate issue. there are leases in place and the agreement of number of people that can live there. this is important both for the tenant and owner. first of all, if a tenant can add a sublease or person to the unit at-will the owner doesn't get compensated for the extra water bill, the extra wear-and-tear and all of the problems. there is no reason that the tenant couldn't charge market rate even though they are currently subsidized with below-market rate and they could pocket the difference. it is going to lead a lot of people doing this at the cost of the homeowners and they are still the ones liable and responsible for everything. where is the fairness in that? it's crazy and doesn't make sense. also concerning basically what
amounts to rent-control has been struck down and aside from that if a unit does get omi'd or whatever, and insist that it gets re-rented at the old rent, the costs have gone up and you don't reimburse the person for that. who is going to rent at a 1987 rent? it's just going to take another unit off the market. i think these rules are just adding to the hostility and will just exacerbate the housing problem. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is robert barhamm i'm here as a volunteer from the mission collaborative. i would really like to thank ms. jane kim for this legislation, because she has proved to be still for the people that elected her to her position. and that i still respect her
scruples and everything. myself, i have seen tenants get kicked out of buildings for having a roommate, because they violated the agreement in their lease as far as having overnights. these are people that have been together, 8, 9 and 10 years and i have even seen people threatened to get evicted because they share custody of a child. where they stay with the father part of the school year and with their mother the other part of the school year. and that is in violation of a rent agreement. so this legislation will give a family a chance to be a family again, to give a child a chance to live with both parents and it will also give a person a chance to have a place to where their companion can come to stay, other than going to jay,
jail, where you can have a companion? in your cell with you. i really wish this legislation to be passed, that the small person still matters in san francisco. i thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> my name is andrew with the san francisco tenants union. i want to say that we support the legislation 100% and thank you supervisor kim. also i wanted to take this time to remind everyone that the only reason the asian-american movement is the only reason that landlords -- that asian-specifically chinese -- i'm chinese, people could be landlords was because of the fight for the international hotel, which was a fight for tenant rights. thank you.
>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, supervisors. catherine chu. >> speak into the mic. >> thank you, asian law caucus. i support this legislation and ask that you do, too. this morning i was in superior court trying to preserve the tenancy with 20-year tenancy. the reason for the eviction was a minor nuisance. the reason we're going in on thursday is for language barrier where my client didn't understand the notice. in both cases, if the tenants are force moved out, the rent will increase by more than triple. for example the rent right now is $800. an empty unit in the same building is currently renting for $4,000. i believe this legislation will go to the core of why
we're seeing this up tick in evictions at this time. this legislation helps the housing crisis i believe two-followed. fold. it increases the housing stock by allowing roommates to come on board and also helps protect the tenants. i believe in you prioritize diversity and culture in san francisco, you will support this legislation. i'm a native san franciscan. i went to school here and actually had a class at lowell from one of the educators who is giving public commentary today. i believe if you do want to help preserve the kind of culture that we have in districts like the mission, and in chinatown, that you will also support you this. thank you.
>> go lowell. >> good afternoon supervisors and it's very fortunate to be surrounded by fellow students in public discourse. i have been teaching in san francisco since 1985 and i'm here to represent the united educaters. when people ask educators what is the no. 1 issue facing education in san francisco? what they often respond with is housing. too many of our school communities are threatened by the disruption of teachers and other school staff, let alone our student and their families being faced with eviction by harassment. this seems to us at the united educators of san francisco, who by the way, represent about 6800 teachers and school staff in the city, represents to us a modest step forward in balancing the legitimate
property rights of landlords , but also honoring and respecting the rights of people to stay in their homes. i will be leaving this podium to join a clergy and community vigil at a family house out in the excelsior. too many of that is happening in san francisco. it's not a one-off problem. we are in an economic pressure cooker. there are good angel and bad angels, but when people have the opportunity to make thousands and thousands of dollars to evict tenants protected by rent-control and other laws, too many people are willing to take that step. our members of uesf, in too many situations wind up on the streets looking for homes and
often leave san francisco to teach elsewhere. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi. i'm carrie gold and supervising attorney at the justice and diversity center at the bar association of san francisco. i guess i'm one of the people that the landlords complain about, because i get pro bono attorneys to represent low-income tenants and to fight their evictions. i have had this entire year almost all of the cases that i have had have been breach cases, minor breaches. you, in fact, decided to handle one of the case because the landlord was a notorious landlord attorney who evicted tenants just all for cause. this attorney, i took her deposition and i just think that sworn testimony is the best statement that can be made
for why it is that we need this legislation. the question: so initially your view of the building having potential also included some type of analysis of the tenancis in that building? answer, yes. question, and what was that analysis ? answer, that all of these people could be terminated, all of their tenancies could be terminated for cause, because they were all in violation of their rental agreements. what if your view was that they could not be terminated for cause? would the building have had the same potential? answer, in my opinion question, yes? answer, i would not have been interested in it. thank you. i urge you to support this legislation. >> thank you, next speaker. >> my name is scott weaver from the san francisco tenants union. we have heard this afternoon of
how severe an imposition this legislation would be for landlords. even though it will save hundreds of affordable units in san francisco, but they haven't really bullpen been able to articulate the severe imposition. how is requiring that a breach of an agreement be substantial or a nuisance be substantial? a severe imposition on the landlord. or if the level of occupancy in a unit can reach the legally allowable level of occupancy, how is that an imposition and can you recover costs associated with that level of occupancy, how is that an imposition? or to require a
60-day notice, to remove an illegal unit, rather than a 3-day notice, how much of an imposition is that really? er or to have a pre-printed form that will inform the language in tenant in a language that they will understand, how is that an undue imposition on the landlords? i doubt that the let the records -- in is legislation that will save hundreds of units per year. so please pass this measure now without delay. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.
>> good afternoon. i am seiu -- we have heard endless stories and this -- as elected officials this is part of our responsibility to work and fix loopholes that legislation creates. this legislation really just addresses something that you guys are all fully aware of, that we have heard over and over and over again. i would urge you guys to support this as seiu tenderloin, we support this legislations as-is. we're fully aware of these stories. these are not secrets, but well-known issue and it's unconscionable to allow a few bad actors to continue to abuse your residents and culture and preservation of the city and the residents. i urge you all to support this. thank you for your time. have a good average. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors.
my name is taylor. i am an attorney at the eviction defense collaborative. at our offices, we keep seeing more and more evictions based on no-fault or low-fault, where the clear moat motivation of the landlord is to get more rent. the fact that it keeps happening shows there are loopholes and this eviction protection 2.0 needs to be passed to protect san francisco's tenants. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker . >> hello. thank you supervisors. i am an attorney at the eviction collaborative as well. i represent tenants for many, many years and what we are seeing right now is stark. what we are seeing is cases being brought for tiny, tiny, little things that should not be the reason to evict somebody.
that not why the san francisco rent ordinance exists. these days when i have friends and acquaintances and neighbors tell me their building was just sold, they are terrified. because they are seeing what is happening in their neighbors and they are terrified of getting a notice themselves. i said you need to watch your back. you may have done nothing wrong or caused a complaint to your landlord, but watch your back, because right now they are out to get you. i shouldn't have to say that to people and this city ought to protect people behaving themselves, but not rewarding let the landlords for picking on tenants. it shouldn't be rewarding greed or rewarding moving ppeople for raising the rented later. all this does is disincentivize
people, but they rented an additional person for profit. because the owner had to include extra water and electronics i had asked for additional utility fee and they agreed and want to move out. they had to ask me to compensate $1,000 for each person and san francisco law has been overprotecting tenants and also makes bullies. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. my name is sharon shay and i'm a small property owner. i believe that tenants are being pitted against landlords, small property owners are being lumped together with large corporations and newer housing not under rent-control. i think we need to work together, rights can't be given to just one side. or i fear that you may lose a lot of small property owners in the city. thank you.
>> my name is becky. i am a small property owner. i oppose this -- supervisor kim's ordinance. and as many small property owners already mentioned, this ordinance will create more problems to the rental market i was wondering that you as supervisors should consider both side and not only one side and to set the rental policy more favorable to both sides, not just one side. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi. my name is -- -- [speaker not understood]
thank you. >> my name is quan chen. i oppose this legislation. this is a very unfair proposatch please do not pass this ordinance. thank you. >> good afternoon, my name is -- i'm with the mission sro collaborative and dolores street community service. first of all, a shotout to everyone who is still here. including the three supervisors. also i want to thank first of all jane kim for supporting sponsoring this legislation. and i'm also here to ask all of you to vote yes on the eviction protections 2.0. eviction protections. ask yourself who are you here to protect? are you here to protect the profiteers who see evictions and displacement as a way to bolster their wallets? those who would seek to take advantage of market conditions,
and view our crisis as a business opportunity? are you here for them? or are you here for -- are you here to protect the poor, the working-class and the middle-class? are you here to protect those who struggle to remain in their homes? those who have to fear an eviction for simply hanging clothes outside? walking their bike in the hallway? or paint a wall in their unit three years ago? all of these are true stories as to why people have been forced to be evicted. if you are indeed here with the people, with us, then not only vote this out of committee, but vote for it when it going to the full board of supervisors. what this does is stem the tide of it mendacity and stupidity, which is washing away home and communities every day. every single day. 24 hours cannot go by in this city without another story added to the san francisco book of displacement.
in front of you is an opportunity to keep thousands of tenants from being added to those pages. it is an opportunity for to you step forward by passing this vital item. i also since lowell got a shout-out i shout-out g-house, i'm wearing the t-short. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> i have spent 40 years in san francisco as a resident. along with my two roommates, we have all lived, worked and raised children here. our new landlord, offered us our entire household the sum of $5,000 to move out, but having been tenants in a rent-controlled building insomaa we predictably exercised our rights to choose to stay. subsequently, much fraudulent accusations by the landlord
were made in a litany of cure or quit notices. four and four months, weekly posting of 24-hour notices to enter our premises for inspection, and even attempts to tow our car. then came the unlawful detainer, we fought it. and unsuccess settlement conference. and then the sudden dismissal of our case by the landlord. his strategy of manipulation was eviction through intimidation. it is not fair that the people who have invested their lives and families in this city are so vulnerable and expendable. thank you. >> next speaker please. >> good evening. my name is lorain mcalister, second-generation san francisco native and granddaughter and daughter of landlords. i was taught the prompt rental
payments and good behavior over a long period of time by tenants was a valuable assets. however, these qualitis are irrelevant in a real estate market in which tenants are mere pawns. in 2015 our landlord knowingly engaged in executing a tsunami of accusations all fraudulent, but there is no oversight of filing of spurious document so this kind of abuse remains. people like myselfs wind up with a full-time defending myself. having been born in the summer of love in san francisco, i find that the hallmark qualities of the city, integrity culture of diversity, and acceptance are qualities now being tested by putting profits over people. the qualities are drying up like a reservoir, in a drought
on humanity. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> supervisors, my name is jane lee. i'm a small property owner. we pay a lot of property tax. and please make the law fair for both sides. this law is not fair. no on this law. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> supervisor my name is annie chu, i'm a small property owner. [speaker not understood] no on this law, okay? thank you. >> next speaker.
>> good afternoon everyone. my name is -- i am a renter in san francisco. but i'm very surprised right here is the owner can -- -- we are concerned about supply and demand for the houses. why they don't make laws to make the houses less and less? why? i want to ask ms. jane, are you a renter in san francisco? if
you know -- -- what is the supply and demand? why do you just let the houses less and less? thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is -- i'm a small property owner. we came to the u.s. as immigrants and my parents were middle-aged and we ate nothing, but hot dog and potatoes for a long time, because we wanted to make it in america. we finally saved enough to buy the property and my parents are now in their 80s. they had no ideas that the laws would get to this point. they cannot understand and they are afraid. they don't want to rent. they cannot afford with their health and financial aid they cannot afford.
in this legislation, how do you define "a substantial violation ? ?" and the new base rent, if you are going to rent again in 20 years, it's going to be together. right now we need to address the problem from the root cause. the rent increase is currently limited to 60% of consumer price index. consumer price index is the minimum inflation at 60% of the minimum and that is totally ridiculous. nowhere you can find that. and that is the root cause, and people don't want to move. that is one of the causes. one of the effects. and then you have no housing, and again the rent goes up. so you need to address the root cause of the problem. thank you.
i say no to this legislation. >> thank you so much:my >> my name is george. i have been a renter in san francisco for over 30 years. i have yet to have known an honest landlord. >> thank you. >> if this passes, i recommend that you pass this resolution, because it will help to protect transpeople of color, and the greater transpopulation, because they are frequently the ones who are greatly egregiously targeted for these unlawful evictions. i have sustained -- i have been able to survive these chronic attempts at eviction over 30 years that i have been here with the help of eviction collaboratives and other agency of that nature. so i'm all in favor for your passage of the bill. thank you. >> thank you very much.
next speaker, please. >> my name is josephine and i thank supervisor kim for your compassion for the renters but also please spare some for the landlords to strike a balance. in the landlords are not doing a good job, give them a cure as well. there are non-profits for the tenants, but none for the landlords. we all do this voluntarily, but not for much longer. to punish the no-fault/low-fault landlords -- mom and pop, good operators who love their tenants, just treat them like families will have to sell to speculators if they didn't survive. that will be really bad for the tenants in the building, we all know that. or we'll have to keep the unit for a family and further reduce the rental stock, making the renters and new immigrants hard
to stay in the city. if our children need the place or when they are done, we have to charge the same rent years down the road as what the current rent is? it's really losing the point. it's hard to believe, but it's true the harder it is to get back a rental property, the less likely the property will be available for rent in the future. vacancy control doesn't work. what if your friend borrows your car and doesn't return it when you need it? you don't lend it to them every ever again. add roommates without helping with liability or insurance that new renters will have to be punished for what others have done. market rents go up crazy, it's
hugy do to chronic unfair legislation. the real solution is to build more so that everyone can -- >> thank you very much. i don't see anyone else in line, but i want to give one final call for public comment on item 9. please come up if you want to speak. all right, seeing no more public comment, public comment is closed at this time [ gavel ] thank you. supervisor kim. >> thank you. i want to ask a question to the city attorney. and this is on one of the issues that were brought up, some concerns that were raised about our piece on the ordinance regarding illegal units. so if a tenant is residing in an illegal unit, whether to their knowledge or not, and the unit cannot be legalized, can the tenant continue to reside in the unit
eviction-proof per our legislation? >> deputy city attorney jon givner. the illegal status of the unit not be a basis for the eviction. the property owner or landlord could evict the person on other allowable bases, like substantial rehab, if that is one of the possibilities in that case. >> okay. so in some cases where the unit cannot be legalized; for example, this ordinance would not prevent an eviction in those cases? >> not necessarily. if there is another basis for eviction. >> thank you. and i know a concern was raised as well regarding short-term rentals being an issue in the eviction protection 2.0
legislation. i do want to thank supervisor malia cohen for bringing this to our attention and we worked with her office to clarify language that additional occupants would be defined as non-transitory and the legislation provisions regarding tenant use of the unit for short-term rental purposes referenced. under the existing short-term rental, will be given a warning for their first violation. property owners will be able to evict tenants upon the second violation. so we're happy to add the language of non-transitory to the provision and reference that the spr legislation to ensure it's absolutely clear that adding a roommate being adding a long-term occupant and not a short-term rental. so i have provided copies to the committee, the amendment is on page 9. and we add a line 4 on lines 7
and 8 for the purposes of the subsection 39 additional october participates shall not include persons with an agreement for less than 30 days and adding the roommate doesn't mean that roommate can be a constantly shifting short-term rentee. i would like to make a motion to amend. >> second. this is for the amendment you just spoke of? i will second that amendment -- that motion, i mean. without objection, this amendment -- this motion passes. [ gavel ] >> thank you. i know most folks have left, but i want to thank everyone who came out. there was over two hours' of public testimony just demonstrating what an important issue this is. and you know, just the many different stories that even i had not heard already, but also
the immense fear that exists amongst our tenants. i want to recognize our small property owners who came out as well. and i know that we have some folks who need to understand their rights, as well as how the system works? i'm also sympathetic to some of the stories that were brought up. we were very careful in drafting this ordinance to really narrowly tailor these issues, these amendments to ensure that they are protecting tenants that deserve to be protected. and ensure that landlords can evict tenants that are bad tenants. that are repeatedly promoting bad behavior in your units. and we also, i think there is a little bit of confusion around vacancy rent control, it's only in four specific case, abate, capital repair and condo conversion. if you are truly doing for those reasons vacancy rent-control should not be an issue because you are not
re-renting that unit. so we do d that to protect property owners interests because we have a lot of great landlords in san francisco. what we are seeing particularly with larger landlords and property owners what are using these frivolous breach of leases to evict tenants. that is what these protections are here for. so colleagues i would like to ask for your support to move this item forward with recommendation to the full board. >> before we go on, there is a couple of remarks that i want to share with everyone. well, good evening everyone and thank you for being here. i appreciatior dedication and your commitment. some of are you starting to become regulars in the chamber ad hoc staff members, if you will. i want to compliment the folks
that are just involved in this entire process as we deal with the affordability crisis as well as housing in san francisco. many people have developed a subject-matter expertise that is to be recognized and commended. supervisor kim thank you for bringing us this wonderful gift of how many hours? two hours' of public comment? but important dialogue to have nonetheless. and i also to the committee members that helped to draft this legislation, thank you for bringing this forward for our consideration. i know it took a long time to get us to where we are today. there are several components of this legislation that i agree with, such as the need to provide notices to tenants in their dominant language. i think it's absolutely critical. so when they are receiving information they can understand all of it. but there are also a few pieces of the legislation that i think
just need to be clarified. and we addressed one of them today in the amendment, in the legislation on section 4, page 9 relating to the illegal residential occupancy. so while i understand that the issues that many of the tenants are facing when a property owner knowingly and illegally subdivides a property into multiple units. and then use that illegal status either intimidate a tenant or even evict them to bring their property into compliance is actually a very real story that i hear very often. but it's not only -- but it's not the only challenge that we're facing when it comes to illegal units. i will share a little bit of the stories happening in the bay view community. the code enforcement team i chair with other city agencis
have inspected properties particularly in the bayview community where there is one bad actor in particular, that subdivides the homes, the single-family homes in a way that makes it completely uninhabitable. and we have seen many single-family homes that have been subdivided into sometimes as many as eight different units with horrific conditions. such as exposed wiring, leaving sewage overflowing garage due to insufficient trash service, as well as illegally installed stoves and heaters. i think it's important that we recognize that will are instances where tenants should not remain in illegal units. also i think there is an important distinction that can be made between "illegal units" that can be legalized and those that cannot because of life and
safety requirements. so i'm not sure really what the right language is at this point to address this issue? this is something that is important to me that i weally really like to address and wanted to extend a commitment to working with the sponsor on this legislation and the committee to develop a way to address this concern. so what i would like to do is suggest that we continue this item to continue to work on addressing some of the remaining issues. even if we pass this ordinance you out of committee today, it wouldn't be heard at the full board until after our august recess. and i think that taking some time to work on this issue would personally benefit district 10 residents, but i think it would benefit the entire city overall. i don't know if anyone has other thoughts on this. supervisor wiener.
>> thank you, madame chair. thank you to everyone on both sides who came out today. i also want to thank supervisor kim for stressing that the so-called vacancy control portion of this is limited to just a few types of evictions. when this was first introduced i must have misunderstood because i thought there was a broader vacancy control effort around so-called low-fault evictions but that is not the case. so it is a much more limited set of evictions that would be impacted by that. but to me, the heart of this legislation isn't that. it's about the issues around breaches of the lease, and also subcategory of that around subtenancies or subletting.
that to me are the questions that i have. and unfortunately when we have these debates about landlord-tenant relations we tend to hear broad statements that all landlords or overwhelming majority of landlords are terrible and dishonest and so forth. and that tenants are generally nar do wells and we know that the overwhelming majority of tenants are just living their lives and are not trying to violate their lease and are just paying their rent and just want to make lives for themselves. we know that there are certainly some landlords, who are just horrible, and i think one was mentioned here today, who we have the dishonor of having largely in my district,
a woman by the name of ana cohagy, who is a sociopath and i don't say that elementary. light lightly. i don't usually make bombastic statements in the board of supervisors, but this is a woman, and there is no other way to describe her and i have worked with alison and other tenants where it's hard to envision living your daily life knowing that you have someone whose only goal is to get you out, doing things like dry walling up the laundry room, or other horrendous things to the tenants and i was thrilled when the city attorney's office have filed the lawsuit and we also
know that not every violation is a fraudulent violation and know that there are tenants who cause problems not just for the landlord, but other tenants. and so i just want to be careful that we're not broad-brushing everything. so i will support the continuance today. and i just want to outline what my questions are: the sections about violations of the lease. one indicates that the violation has to be "substantial" which i understand is effectively already the law. and if it's not, then i think it should be. although we want to be clear what that means. i don't think we want people to be evicted for really minor
violations, leaving their shoes in the hallways or leaving their bikes somewhere. the laundry hanging out of someone's home. while understanding while more significant violations when people are doing things that are impacting their neighbors or other tenants or the property; that is a different situation. there is also language and i have been asking everyone who will listen about this and i have not gotten a good answer. on page 9, line 15, i think is the area where it says, "when the landlord is endeavoring to require possession qualifying the tenant is committed or permit a nuisance or damage." if you read that literally, it means that if someone is doing damage to the property or tormenting their neighbors, but the notice is not served for another few days or a week, at the time that notice is served
they may not be committing the nuisance. so i am in agreement that we shouldn't allow for a nuisance violation for something that is steal, stale, saying a year-ago you played your music loud, for a week, but now a it's more indicative of intent and you are trying to get tenant out, but that language has to be significantly tighten ed because i think right now, it is -- if you read it literally it's problematic. in terms of subtenancies, i think the current law provides that you can move a family member in. you can swap in a subtenant or
roommate for a roommate. and i'm open to discussions about how to address in a targeted way some of the problems we're seeing around roommates and subtenancies. because i agree there are some abuses going on and heard about some of those today with very legitimate roommate or subtenancy a[tkpwrao-ept/]s agreements and they are being evicted. this effectively eliminates or overrides any provision in the lease that limit the number of tenants in a unit other than what the housing code provides, which is the maximum that is considered, i think, appropriate in terms of health and safety. so the landlord including an existing leases would have no power whatsoever in an agreement that people agree to that say this is the maximum number of people that can live in the unit.
again, i'm open to taking a look at a more targeted approach to how we deal with roommates and subtenancies. i'm open to addressing what we're seeing around minor breachs and trying to make sure that premise not being evicted for minor breaches. for right now, i think this language is too broad in these two areas. i will also say, and this is just some of the sadness of human existence, for people who are sociopathic or bound and determined to harass people and violate the law, they are going to do it no matter what the law says. ana ko hagy is violating the laws in a million different ways and the evictions that she is filing are fraudulent under the current law existing today. so we could amend the law a thousand time and people like that will continue to harass their tenants. so those are just some of the thoughts that
i have. i will support the continuance today and i look forward to the conversation over the next -- over the august recess into september. >> all right. supervisor wiener thank you very much. just a point of order, to the city attorney, correct me if i'm wrong, but a motion to continue is that a motion we would have to take first prior to the two motions on the take table; right? ? made clerk. >> supervisor kim. >> you have a motion to amend. thats has notice been acted on yet? >> it has been. >> that is the only motion on the table to continue? >> no, i made a motion to move this forward with recommendations and supervisor cohen made a motion to continue the item. >> the motion to continue takes precedence. >> yes. my understanding is that precedence of the motion is to take the motion to continue first and then to recommend to the board. >> thank you very much for
that clarification. all right everyone. so there is a motion -- i made a motion to continue. is there a second? supervisor wiener? >> yes. >> can we take this unanimously or roll call. >> roll call. >> roll call vote, please >> this is to continue to-- >> that is item no. 9. >> to what date? >> after recess, first board meeting after recess is september 8th. i believe we meet on september 7th. >> why don't we do the second week of september. >> september 14th. >> yes, please. >> the 7th day is labor day, i believe. >> move it to the 14th of september. >> on the motion to continue to september 14th, supervisor kim? >> >> no. >> kim, no. >> supervisor wiener.
>> aye. >> wiener aye. >> and chair cohen? >> aye. >> aye. two ayes, one no. >> thank you very much, this motion passes [tkpwhra*-efplt/] [ gavel ] >> i would like to call items 7 and 8 together. >> you thank you. >> item no. 7 is a resolution receiving and approving the first bi-annual housing balances report for fiscal year 2014-2015 and item no. 8 is a hearing to present findings from the inaugural housing report. >> thank you. thank you for calling these together. supervisor kim is the author of both of these items. supervisor kim. >> thank you. i am going to make a motion to continue items 7 and 8 to the call of the chair. i think given the time, and given the length of the report, it bo would make sense to continue and another report that the planning department will be coming out with in september anyway, that is an
update on the one that was released in july. so this allow the planning department the opportunity to actually merge the two reports together, and actually add a number of data points that the community has asked for since the july report has come ut. so i will make the motion to continue to the call of the chair. >> thank you very much we'll schedule that as soon as possible. without -- so there has been a motion made. without objections -- that is the word i'm looking for without objection this motion passes [ gavel ] . thank you very much. >> public comment? >> that is right. let's make a motion to rescind the vote. >> second. >> thank you. unanimous motion to rescind. open up for public comments on items 7 and 8. anyone who wishes to speak on
items 7 and 8 that we're going to continue? okay. all right, seeing no public comment. okay. did you want to make your comment formally? >> my name is george. i recommend continuance in the absence of time. >> thank you very much. is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed at this time [ gavel ] all right. motion made by supervisor wiener, unanimously accepted by this body. [ gavel ] motion passs to continue. thank you. to the call of the chair. is there any other work before this body. >> there snow further business before the body. >> thank you ladies and gentlemen. this committee is adjourned. [ gavel ].
>> we all know a major earthquake will eventually hit san francisco are reproerl presented san francisco is making sure we are with the public safety buildings. >> this consists of 4 consultants the police headquarters with the from 850 with a brand new fire station number 4 to serve mission bay swimming pools at office of
economic workforce development in the fire station thirty. >> is the the hall of justice on bryant the new home for 2 hundred and 50 uniform and voiven compresses we all it was opened in 19 so sociothat is a 50-year improvement as far as structure and work environment had that will be a great place to work. >> when construction began in 2011 this was with an clear goal to make sure with the big one heights the resident will will have a function police department those are the highly seismic standards it is up to operate up to 96 hours from the police department perspective that building is self-sufficient for a main made arrest in all disastrous zake ever after we
will run our operational from here no matter what happens this building and the people that serve the businesses will continue to function building is designed to meet lead goal certification and also to art installations on the campus that was designed and constructed to better sense of ability so for example we're using solar water heaters we're also urging gray water for reuse inform flush water and rainwater for the cooling and irrigation locked on third street and mission rock is it serves the motorbike neighborhood and motorbike i moiks is a growing neighborhood and the intent of the bond to have please and fire serves to serve the community. >> hemming helping to keep the
building and the stay safe was the not the only opportunity it creates many jobs with 82 bleb businesses overall san franciscans contributed one hundred and 87 thousand hours to help to complete the project it shows the city of san francisco the elected officials and police officers and more importantly the voters that paid for the building this is what we can do with when we wrorpt this is a beacon when we need to build new extra we can trust them with the money and the plan they did a good job the san francisco public is a reminder of the importance of being presented and will continue to serve the residents for decades to come.
>> director brinkman director nolan director ramos director rubke directors please be advised director heinecke will not be peer we have quorum item 3 please be advised that the chair may order the removal from the meeting room responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound-producing electronic devices. cause microphone interfere please placed them in the off position arrest minutes for the meeting so moved. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> i's have it